The Second Apocalypse

Earwa => General Earwa => Topic started by: Callan S. on November 25, 2013, 05:13:25 am

Title: The read 'em all thread: K to the A's kids - Yatwerian Sanction?
Post by: Callan S. on November 25, 2013, 05:13:25 am
Yatwerian denial,
(click to show/hide)
, or unable to resist giving, rebukes in regards to his children (including if any were subsquently killed by Kellhus that we don't know about)
Title: Re: So, the state of Kellhus's kids - Yatwerian sanction?
Post by: EkyannusIII on November 25, 2013, 03:13:33 pm
I always took Kellhus' reproductive problems to be a successful long term strike at him by the Consult.  Remember when Esmenet did it in the allyway at Momemn with that nameless blonde guy? Well, IIRC his semen is black like that of Aurang in his first encounter with Esmenet.  That didn't make sense to me unless intercouse with the synthese had tainted Esmenet in some way and thereby damaged her fertility, which would then effect every subsequent coupling.  This might mean that the defectiveness of Kellhus' children is not the product of his seed being "too heavy" for mortal women to bear but not heavy enough to overcome the Inchoroi pollution in every instance of conception.

And, of course, it is another nod to Dune, specifically the
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: So, the state of Kellhus's kids - Yatwerian sanction?
Post by: Wilshire on November 25, 2013, 03:31:56 pm
That is a very good point EkannusIII.  As they say, the best lie is a plausible one.
Title: Re: So, the state of Kellhus's kids - Yatwerian sanction?
Post by: Borque on November 25, 2013, 03:36:56 pm
I seem to remember that Kellhus failed to get viable children with some concubines as well. It seems slightly improbable that Aurang had messed with all of them too.
Title: Re: So, the state of Kellhus's kids - Yatwerian sanction?
Post by: Wilshire on November 25, 2013, 05:51:40 pm
I seem to remember that Kellhus failed to get viable children with some concubines as well. It seems slightly improbable that Aurang had messed with all of them too.
They could be mutually exclusive. Just so happens that the only woman Kellhus could breed with has been raped by his enemy. World conspires?
Title: Re: So, the state of Kellhus's kids - Yatwerian sanction?
Post by: Borque on November 25, 2013, 08:20:54 pm
They could be mutually exclusive. Just so happens that the only woman Kellhus could breed with has been raped by his enemy. World conspires?
That darned conspiring World, yes. Could be. But it seems a little too... what's the adjectivisation, now again... Nerdany? Nerdanish? Nerdanesque?
Title: Re: So, the state of Kellhus's kids - Yatwerian sanction?
Post by: Wilshire on November 25, 2013, 08:34:31 pm
That darned conspiring World, yes. Could be. But it seems a little too... what's the adjectivisation, now again... Nerdany? Nerdanish? Nerdanesque?
lol. You can go with 'insane', or 'horrifically unlikely'.

Though I agree its might be a stretch I think its still within the realm of possibility. Though less so because no one knew that Esmi was special yet, nor was anyone hyper focused on Kellhus. If those events took place after the Consult were freaking out, and after Esmi had been selected as his mate, then this would seem far more plausible.

The whole World Conspires bit was kind of a joke. I was never able to figure it out enough to use it in a sentence properly.
Title: Re: So, the state of Kellhus's kids - Yatwerian sanction?
Post by: locke on November 25, 2013, 09:56:53 pm
I always took Kellhus' reproductive problems to be a successful long term strike at him by the Consult.  Remember when Esmenet did it in the allyway at Momemn with that nameless blonde guy? Well, IIRC his semen is black like that of Aurang in his first encounter with Esmenet.  That didn't make sense to me unless intercouse with the synthese had tainted Esmenet in some way and thereby damaged her fertility, which would then effect every subsequent coupling.  This might mean that the defectiveness of Kellhus' children is not the product of his seed being "too heavy" for mortal women to bear but not heavy enough to overcome the Inchoroi pollution in every instance of conception.

And, of course, it is another nod to Dune, specifically the
(click to show/hide)
From the chapter fifteen thread of the re-read project:

Quote
Also of interest is the Esmenet section because of the Black Seed.

Does anyone know if Esmenet ever thinks about fucking Sarcellus or otherwise whoring herself to him?  In otherwords, does she have any black seed encounters with Sarcellus, or is this encounter with this John her first sexual encounter after the interrorape by the inchoroi/synthese?  If this is her first fuck after the inchoroi then the black seed may have been lingering  unexpelled inside her. 

It's possible that the black seed means something else, perhaps this John was a skin spy?  But if the skin spy has black seed, then why doesn't Esmenet ever note black seed from Sarcellus and identify him as Consult? 

Indeed, black seed from a skin spy might seem to defeat their purpose as it would be a good way to identify them--and would cause them to be identified often since they seem to have a less than stellar control over their sexual impulses.  So if the John is not a skin spy, then why did he have black seed? 

If he was a synthese, that might explain it, or perhaps if he were possessed by the inchoroi that might explain it, but neither of those really explain his autonomy.  And neither a synthese nor a possessed person would express regret at the end of the encounter.   And if he were under the control of the inchoroi, what have they to gain by this public fucking?  It's a pointless play.

In all this entire scene makes no sense in the context of a reread, it's easy to overlook a first time through, but amidst the knowledge bestowed by future books this one scene stands out as an especially incomprehensible anomaly.

Though perhaps the best explanation is that the black seed and the "what have I done" are disconnected units of experience.  they are not on a continuum.

That is to say, perhaps Esmenet sees Black Seed because this was particularly transgressive behavior, so her mind punishes her with guilt and imagery it finds most offensive, something in proportion to her transgression and the black seed is merely an illusion of her consciousness, it's not actually there, she just thinks it is because the trauma memories help her punish herself for her desire.  Her perspective is not broken by the man's discontinuous 'what have I done' she just thinks its in response to the black seed.  But he didn't see any black seed, he just now came to his senses and realized he just fucked like a wild animal and broke a vow or moral belief that he had previously not transgressed.  His 'what have I done' was a normal guilt reflex, and his fleeing was related to his own internal narrative, and not the black seed, he never even saw the black seed.

for some reason that 'simplest' explanation seemed really difficult and complex to explain.  :-p it seems I had an illusion of simplicity when I thought it up.
Title: Re: So, the state of Kellhus's kids - Yatwerian sanction?
Post by: Madness on November 26, 2013, 02:24:18 pm
Yatwerian denial, with the still births, or unable to resist giving, rebukes in regards to the children that did survive (including if any were subsquently killed by Kellhus that we don't know about)

Just curious. Why this subforum?

I always took Kellhus' reproductive problems to be a successful long term strike at him by the Consult.  Remember when Esmenet did it in the allyway at Momemn with that nameless blonde guy? Well, IIRC his semen is black like that of Aurang in his first encounter with Esmenet.  That didn't make sense to me unless intercouse with the synthese had tainted Esmenet in some way and thereby damaged her fertility, which would then effect every subsequent coupling.  This might mean that the defectiveness of Kellhus' children is not the product of his seed being "too heavy" for mortal women to bear but not heavy enough to overcome the Inchoroi pollution in every instance of conception.

And, of course, it is another nod to Dune, specifically the
(click to show/hide)

Lol - us Dune aficionados need to start collecting all these references and getting them into the Herbert & Bakker (http://second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=889.0) thread. And TSA fandom should probably just suck it up and read all of Frank Herbert's Dune so we can reference it like we do Tolkien (though, I'm always, always surprised by those who haven't read Lord of the Rings either).

Anyhow, to point - the John's sperm isn't black, Esmenet seems to be having a flashback, and I think we concluded in the thread locke linked (might even have mentioned it in the quote portion of the post, haven't read it all thoroughly yet) that skin-spies can't have black seed or if they do, they never actually have sex with people (I don't recall Shrial Knights needing to be celibate but is it assumed?), as we don't actually have evidence of Esmenet and Sarcellus having sex at all (which is probably just assumed by the readership).

Though, I will admit I've always thought of something having been done to Kayutas specifically because Esmenet could possibly have been pregnant already at the time of her possession by Aurang and she gets some of Aurang's memories!

So, like...

(click to show/hide)

I seem to remember that Kellhus failed to get viable children with some concubines as well. It seems slightly improbable that Aurang had messed with all of them too.

+1.

They could be mutually exclusive. Just so happens that the only woman Kellhus could breed with has been raped by his enemy. World conspires?
That darned conspiring World, yes. Could be. But it seems a little too... what's the adjectivisation, now again... Nerdany? Nerdanish? Nerdanesque?

Nerdanelly, maybe?

Realistically, there are two woman in the entire world who bred Moenghus and Kellhus children... so the world seems to have to conspire on some level.

The whole World Conspires bit was kind of a joke. I was never able to figure it out enough to use it in a sentence properly.

I'm finishing up a paper on Machiavelli's Christian leanings so this example is fresh but I'm thinking I might write a mock-philosophy paper on a Machiavellian Reading of TSA after having taken this seminar class.

Anyhow, for this instance (and Hegel could well fed right into this, among others), Machiavelli's Fortune (as it can distinguished from Fate) could serve as an analogy. It's this idea that there are a sometimes perfect storms of opportunity, too obvious and graspable to a worthy human or inevitable and indifferent to our struggles, not to have been ordained by the collective exertions of the powers that be and the natural and social forces. Here that just happens to include Fate, the Gods, God, Solitary, Consult, Nonmen, Kellhus, the Outside, etc in that algebra...

That is to say, perhaps Esmenet sees Black Seed because this was particularly transgressive behavior, so her mind punishes her with guilt and imagery it finds most offensive, something in proportion to her transgression and the black seed is merely an illusion of her consciousness, it's not actually there, she just thinks it is because the trauma memories help her punish herself for her desire.  Her perspective is not broken by the man's discontinuous 'what have I done' she just thinks its in response to the black seed.  But he didn't see any black seed, he just now came to his senses and realized he just fucked like a wild animal and broke a vow or moral belief that he had previously not transgressed.  His 'what have I done' was a normal guilt reflex, and his fleeing was related to his own internal narrative, and not the black seed, he never even saw the black seed.

for some reason that 'simplest' explanation seemed really difficult and complex to explain.  :-p it seems I had an illusion of simplicity when I thought it up.

+1 again ;). Simple but difficult to articulate, maybe?
Title: Re: So, the state of Kellhus's kids - Yatwerian sanction?
Post by: Callan S. on November 26, 2013, 10:43:35 pm
Yatwerian denial, with the still births, or unable to resist giving, rebukes in regards to the children that did survive (including if any were subsquently killed by Kellhus that we don't know about)

Just curious. Why this subforum?
I might be remembering it badly, but isn't this book where his kids show up first? If not this subforum, where, Mike?
Title: Re: So, the state of Kellhus's kids - Yatwerian sanction?
Post by: locke on November 26, 2013, 11:17:21 pm
Yatwerian denial, with the still births, or unable to resist giving, rebukes in regards to the children that did survive (including if any were subsquently killed by Kellhus that we don't know about)

Just curious. Why this subforum?
I might be remembering it badly, but isn't this book where his kids show up first? If not this subforum, where, Mike?
Everytime someone calls Madness, Mike, I think of him as looking like the Great Eye, Mike Wazowski.

(http://drawception.com/pub/panels/2013/9-11/gt8eZja8cS-8.png)
Title: Re: So, the state of Kellhus's kids - Yatwerian sanction?
Post by: Callan S. on November 27, 2013, 02:28:43 am
Working as intended.
Title: Re: So, the state of Kellhus's kids - Yatwerian sanction?
Post by: Madness on November 27, 2013, 10:35:03 am
Yatwerian denial, with the still births, or unable to resist giving, rebukes in regards to the children that did survive (including if any were subsquently killed by Kellhus that we don't know about)

Just curious. Why this subforum?
I might be remembering it badly, but isn't this book where his kids show up first? If not this subforum, where, Mike?

WLW? Misc. Chatter? I understand it seems tedious but I really do think that spoilers are a big turnoff to newcomers. So while that might limit the kinds of remaining questions that we who have been immersed can ask in each of the book specific subforums, newcomers could still use those subforums to populate with their own wild theories... Ideally, there would always be another new reader who hasn't yet read Bakker who participates in the forum when they find it along with the series for the first time. When you post it in TJE, I wonder why you want to give me the headache of deciding what does or does not constitute spoilers or priming for narrative, etc, for WLW.

Quote
I might be remembering it badly, but isn't this book where his kids show up first? If not this subforum, where, Mike?
Everytime someone calls Madness, Mike, I think of him as looking like the Great Eye, Mike Wazowski.

Working as intended.

Lol. Brilliant.
Title: Re: So, the state of Kellhus's kids - Yatwerian sanction?
Post by: Callan S. on November 28, 2013, 01:08:58 am
WLW? Misc. Chatter? I understand it seems tedious but I really do think that spoilers are a big turnoff to newcomers. So while that might limit the kinds of remaining questions that we who have been immersed can ask in each of the book specific subforums, newcomers could still use those subforums to populate with their own wild theories... Ideally, there would always be another new reader who hasn't yet read Bakker who participates in the forum when they find it along with the series for the first time. When you post it in TJE, I wonder why you want to give me the headache of deciding what does or does not constitute spoilers or priming for narrative, etc, for WLW.
Unless I'm remembering the books wrong, his kids are described in the judging eye (if I am remembering wrong and it's all in WLW, okay, move the thread over to there).

Apart from that, I think your confusing your own perception of there being spoilers involved as me having an intent to give headaches. Anyway I've edited the OP to spoiler blocked one thing and remove
(click to show/hide)
from it, the rest is my own wild speculation. Perhaps you think I'm so right that you confuse me as giving a spoiler, rather than speculation?  ;D
Title: Re: So, the state of Kellhus's kids - Yatwerian sanction?
Post by: Wilshire on November 28, 2013, 03:19:46 am
Any information in the book is fair game. So everything through the end of TJE is fair game, any information divulged in WLW should be spoiler tagged. Sometimes it can be hard to accurately remember where that line is, so to be safe putting this in WLW or misnc chatter would eliminate any need for the tag.

Title: Re: So, the state of Kellhus's kids - Yatwerian sanction?
Post by: Madness on November 28, 2013, 11:58:55 am
Any information in the book is fair game. So everything through the end of TJE is fair game, any information divulged in WLW should be spoiler tagged. Sometimes it can be hard to accurately remember where that line is, so to be safe putting this in WLW or misnc chatter would eliminate any need for the tag.

+1

WLW? Misc. Chatter? I understand it seems tedious but I really do think that spoilers are a big turnoff to newcomers. So while that might limit the kinds of remaining questions that we who have been immersed can ask in each of the book specific subforums, newcomers could still use those subforums to populate with their own wild theories... Ideally, there would always be another new reader who hasn't yet read Bakker who participates in the forum when they find it along with the series for the first time. When you post it in TJE, I wonder why you want to give me the headache of deciding what does or does not constitute spoilers or priming for narrative, etc, for WLW.
Unless I'm remembering the books wrong, his kids are described in the judging eye (if I am remembering wrong and it's all in WLW, okay, move the thread over to there).

Apart from that, I think your confusing your own perception of there being spoilers involved as me having an intent to give headaches. Anyway I've edited the OP to spoiler blocked one thing and remove
(click to show/hide)
from it, the rest is my own wild speculation. Perhaps you think I'm so right that you confuse me as giving a spoiler, rather than speculation?  ;D

... I don't actually attribute many people intent. Also, my posts are either all sarcasm or deadly serious, and honestly, usually the latter (so you figure it out ;)).

But really, what Wilshire wrote. Unless you want to discuss the kids, in relative peace without me harping on you, and how Yatwer might have allowed Kellhus to bear kids at all, as that situation stands only at the end of Judging Eye, I literally don't see the point of starting a thread here as it limits everyone who might want to participate from referencing openly WLW or even the TUC Chapters' excerpt/summary.
Title: Re: So, the state of Kellhus's kids - Yatwerian sanction?
Post by: Callan S. on November 29, 2013, 12:58:26 am
Quote
as that situation stands only at the end of Judging Eye
If you treat the knowledge that Yatwer is the goddess of birth as a spoiler, okay Mike, shift the thread. As I see it, that's not a spoiler - it's in the glossary. I could be saying 'The state of Kellhus's murderous kids (murderous, as described on the blurb on the back of the book) did Moenghus do that?' or 'His kids - did Gilgaol do that?' and have as many spoilers. Cause it's just regular, crazy speculation. If you want to see Yatwers role as goddess of birth as a spoiler and want to move it because of that, okay. But there isn't much point in wanting me to see it as a spoiler as well - I wont.

Yes, most people here would respond to it with knowledge of the full book and latter books. But it doesn't have to be responded to that way and if people want to, they could start their own thread in misc.
Title: The read 'em all thread: K to the A's kids - Yatwerian Sanction?
Post by: Callan S. on November 29, 2013, 01:39:25 am
So, you read 'em all that is there to be read. Spew forth all you have to this topic of whether Yatwers been messing with them two's downstairs stuff and making their kids all like that and all!?
Title: Re: So, the state of Kellhus's kids - Yatwerian sanction?
Post by: Madness on November 29, 2013, 02:51:18 pm
I wasn't calling you out personally (or that specific point), Callan.

This thread, TJE subforum; strong possibility of spoiling the revelations of WLW...
Title: Re: The read 'em all thread: K to the A's kids - Yatwerian Sanction?
Post by: mrganondorf on April 16, 2014, 10:11:46 am
@ Callan - The cup is half full?  Could be that Yatwer/Aurang sought to shut down Esmi's womb entirely and Kellhus was able to mitigate the curse.  The power of a meta-gnostic dunyain?

I'm not sold on those 'nameless ones' all being dead.  I bet Kellhus could find a use for them at Dagliash.  Could be some Anasurimbor monstrosities roll out, possible with the gift of the few and the metagnosis, the Celmomian Prophecy fulfilled in a most unlikely way.  :P

Also, there's way more of them than we suspect.  Kellhus has been busy.  Maybe he's impregnated all of Eanna during weekend stays.

@ EkyannusIII - Your Dune analogy got me thinking--it's less likely that someone is messing with Esmi and all of the surrogates than someone simply messing with Kellhus.  Either something planted long ago or an ongoing sabotage.  Markless sorcery?  Could be gods and/or dad.  If Esmi's problems stem from her possession in TTT, then Kellhus might be feeling some residual effects from TWP, if what happened on the tree in Caraskand was a possession.

@ Madness - WOW!  Your thing about Aurang->Esmi->Kayutas really ties in with what you were saying elsewhere about Kellhus being offed by a son and Moeghus, dagger and chorae.
Title: Re: The read 'em all thread: K to the A's kids - Yatwerian Sanction?
Post by: Madness on April 16, 2014, 12:07:27 pm
Yeah, it'd be interesting, if Kayutas has been affected. Really banking on ancestral memories arising somewhere...
Title: Re: The read 'em all thread: K to the A's kids - Yatwerian Sanction?
Post by: mrganondorf on April 20, 2014, 03:53:56 am
Yeah, it'd be interesting, if Kayutas has been affected. Really banking on ancestral memories arising somewhere...

While I think they'd be neat, and a neat nod to Herbert, I have to say that I found this part of Herbert's story very taxing on the 'suspension of disbelief.'  It would be way more believable in Bakker's world, but when reading Herbert, I found myself thinking "well that is contrived, but still fun, so I'll keep reading."

I like it better in Douglas Adams with the guy who has memories of Genghis Khan.
Title: Re: The read 'em all thread: K to the A's kids - Yatwerian Sanction?
Post by: Madness on April 20, 2014, 02:24:29 pm
Hey! You take that kind of talk to Herbert and Bakker (http://second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=889.0) :P. There are too few of us that can participate in that discussion for the content to be spread all diffusely across the forum.

(Lol - I distinguish your comment from mine based on quantity ;))
Title: Re: The read 'em all thread: K to the A's kids - Yatwerian Sanction?
Post by: Wilshire on May 02, 2014, 01:39:00 am
Hey! You take that kind of talk to Herbert and Bakker (http://second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=889.0) :P. There are too few of us that can participate in that discussion for the content to be spread all diffusely across the forum.

(Lol - I distinguish your comment from mine based on quantity ;))
Seriously. Don't dilute the wealth. ;)
Title: Re: The read 'em all thread: K to the A's kids - Yatwerian Sanction?
Post by: mrganondorf on May 13, 2014, 01:02:17 pm
I think I only think of Herbert stuff when I'm on other threads!  Sorry!  I read the Bakker/Herbert thread and thought, "I have nothing to add."  Then something comes to me at an unrelated thread :(

About Kellhus kids, maybe instead of seeing them as Yatwerian interference, they should be read as manifestations of the meta-gnosis.  Kayutas is first and more or a raw product.  Serwa is fashioned to be both female and Gifted.  Theli, Inrilatas, and the nameless one could all be experiments that didn't work out just right.  The twins are perhaps Kellhus' greatest achievement as he was able to siphon the most strength into one body and the greatest amount of weaknesses into the other. 

This is my new favorite crackpot: that Kellhus is preparing Kelmomas body for some reason, perhaps to be possessed by his dad!